There has been some confusion if Wallens Ridge State Prison is still a Supermax Prison.
No Wallens Ridge State Prison in Big Stone Gap, Virginia, is not a supermax prison. It’s one of two level five prison facilities in Virginia, the other being Red Onion State Prison. These prisons are designed to house inmates who pose high security risks.
Here’s why Wallens Ridge is not classified as a supermax:
- High-Security Designation: It’s a level 5 prison, which is the highest security level in the Virginia Department of Corrections.
- Specialized Housing: Both Wallens Ridge and Red Onion are designed to house inmates with severe behavioral problems or those considered high-risk.
- Remote Location: The prisons are situated in remote, rural areas, which contributes to their high-security environment.
- Specialized Security Measures: Level 5 prisons often employ extensive security measures, including restricted movement, solitary confinement, and heightened surveillance.
However, after further exhaustive investigation, all but one supermax prison in the US has been downgraded. There is only one supermax prison remaining in the U.S. federal prison system, ADX Florence in Florence, Colorado. A supermax Prison is considered a level 6 prison.
Here are some of the steps that Peter went through when he arrived at Wallens Ridge State Prison. Upon arrival at a prison Reception Center, the incarcerated person must go through the reception and classification process. This could take up to 90 days. Once all the incarcerated person’s case factors are reviewed//they will be assigned a classification score. They will then be recommended for an appropriate placement at an institution based on their level. The incarcerated person’s family location is taken into consideration; however, being placed near family is not guaranteed due to many other factors.
INCARCERATED PERSON PLACEMENT (SECURITY LEVEL)
Level I
People assessed as Level I have few, if any, identifiable criminogenic or non-criminogenic needs. Any needs they exhibit are minimal and/or transitory in nature. Level I people have clearly identifiable resources and strengths within the psychological, interpersonal, and lifestyle domains, and they are psychologically and socially similar to people without a criminal record. Their risk of new criminal behavior is no different from the rate of spontaneous, first-time offending for people without a criminal record, which is estimated at 1–2 percent per year among 18- to 25-year-old males, with an upper limit of 5 percent over two years.
Correctional Response. Custody (i.e., placement in prison or jail) will be counterproductive in reducing recidivism for people grouped in Level I. The base rate of reoffending is low enough that prison may worsen recidivism outcomes. People in this level are expected to comply with the conditions of community supervision, regardless of the supervision strategy, so minimal levels of monitoring would be warranted. The only human services needed are referral services and sharing of information on services and programs available in the community, such as family counseling.
Prognosis. The expected rate of reoffending for people in this level is very low. Accordingly, there are not any expected changes in this level’s base rate of reoffending because it is already low, and intervention is unlikely to lower it further. The risk of reoffending for this level is the same as the risk of criminal behavior for people in the community at large (less than or equal to 5 percent over three years). The majority of people classified as Level I are expected to desist from criminal behavior, even without a correctional response.
Level II
People assessed as Level II have one or two identifiable criminogenic needs, and the severity of these needs is considered lower than the average risk defined in Level III. The needs are transitory or acute, rather than ingrained or sustained over time. People classified in Level II may have some non-criminogenic needs, but these, too, would not be severe. Like people assessed as Level I, Level II people have some identifiable resources and strengths. People at this level are expected to respond quickly and positively to services. The two-year reoffending rate for this level is higher than for the community at large (i.e., greater than or equal to 5 percent), but lower (estimated to be less than 30 percent) than the typical or average rate of reoffending for people designated as Level III (40 percent). The reoffending rate for this level is between 10 and 30 percent, with an average two-year reoffense rate of 19 percent.
Correctional Response. Long-term custody of people identified as Level II would be counterproductive due to the adverse effects of incarceration, such as destabilizing social supports and potentially increasing recidivism. Members of this level are expected to comply with the conditions and requirements of community supervision. The most appropriate strategy for working with Level II individuals is simple, traditional case management, which involves monitoring compliance and service/ program participation. In terms of human services, the focus should be on short-term interventions with an emphasis on problem-solving and assistance in accessing community services.
Prognosis. By affording people identified as Level II with the correctional strategies outlined above, the majority would transition down to Level I and its respective rate of reoffending (i.e., less than 5 percent over two years) within a short timeframe (e.g., six months or less). Desistance from criminal offending is likely for those assessed as Level II when their criminogenic needs are addressed.
Level III
Level III describes people in the middle of the risk and needs distribution of the entire correctional population (i.e., the national population of all people in custody or under community supervision). People identified as Level III have multiple criminogenic needs—varying in severity—in their psychological, interpersonal, and lifestyle domains. Generally, these people may have one or two discrete criminogenic needs that are considered primary drivers of their criminal behavior. People in Level III are also likely to have some noncriminogenic needs typical of the general correctional population (e.g., past trauma or mental health needs). Members of this level tend to have some identifiable resources and strengths, but their needs (criminogenic and non-criminogenic) are likely to be barriers to effective use of these resources and strengths. The rate of reoffending for Level III people who do not receive any interventions is equivalent to the overall correctional population’s average rate of reoffending, presently estimated to be approximately 40 percent over two years. The statistical boundaries of this risk level were designed to reflect the impact of routine effective correctional intervention, a reduction of approximately 10 percent in the absolute recidivism rate. Thus, using the 40 percent average reoffense rate, the upper boundary was set at about 10 percent higher (i.e., 49 percent) and the lower limit 10 percent lower (i.e., 30 percent).
Correctional Response. Custody for people grouped in Level III may be appropriate for short-term risk management. People in this level are expected to benefit from community supervision practices that both enhance compliance and encourage prosocial change. Human services should focus on the person’s criminogenic needs, with secondary attention to non-criminogenic needs. The adequate dosage (i.e., duration and intensity) of services would amount to approximately 100–200 hours, including formal treatment programs and change-focused supervision activities.
Prognosis. When people identified as Level III are provided with evidence-based correctional interventions in sufficient dosage, a significant reduction in reoffending would be expected—that is, a reduction of approximately 10 percent in the absolute recidivism rate. Even when interventions are successful, however, the reoffense rate for Level III individuals would still be discernibly higher than the rate of offending for the general population. For approximately half of the people in Level III, successful interventions would result in reoffense rates that approximate the base rate of reoffending, similar to that of people in Level II (i.e., 19 percent over two years). Nevertheless, it is expected that a proportion of these individuals will continue to be involved in the criminal justice system over the next three to five years; however, over the longer term (five to seven years), desistance from crime will become increasingly likely.
Level IV
People assessed as Level IV have many criminogenic needs, likely representing all of the risk-relevant domains (psychological, interpersonal, and lifestyle), with a number of those needs being chronic and severe. In addition, these people have multiple, severe, and/or chronic non-criminogenic needs. The Level IV person may have some identifiable resources and strengths, but there are chronic barriers to accessing these resources, personal strengths, and social supports. The two-year rate of reoffending for people assessed as Level IV is approximately 65 percent (ranging from a low of 50 percent to a high of 84 percent), which is discernibly higher than the average 840 percent two-year rate of reoffending for the entire correctional population.
Correctional Response. The vast majority of people in Level IV have a history of incarceration. When they are released to the community, they are likely to require intensive community supervision that is focused on monitoring for community safety, enhancing compliance, and strengthening treatment/ service engagement, participation, and retention. Given the complexity and chronic nature of the criminogenic needs of people at this level, evidence indicates that intensive, lengthy (200–300 hours), and comprehensive services are required. Correctional treatment and other social-service interventions should focus primarily on these people’s numerous criminogenic needs and include services such as formal in-custody treatment programs, community-based treatment programs, and change-focused post-release supervision. Non-criminogenic needs should be addressed after individuals with Level IV needs receive these services and begin to initiate prosocial lifestyle changes.
Prognosis. A significant reduction of reoffending (i.e., 10 percent) would be expected when people in Level IV are provided evidence-based correctional strategies in sufficient dosage. At best, however, the reoffense rate of these people would still be high, though reducing over time, and some of these people would show recidivism rates approximating those found in Level III. Given their chronic pattern of criminal behavior, the expectation is that a substantial proportion of Level IV people will reoffend over the long term, with a greater risk of recidivism sooner after release. Successful rehabilitation of these people typically involves gradual life changes over a long period of time (i.e., 10+ years) with increasingly lower rates of recidivism as they age.
Level V
People assessed as Level V have most, if not all, of the major criminogenic needs from the psychological, interpersonal, and lifestyle domains. Many of these needs are chronic, severe, and longstanding. In addition, these people likely have multiple, severe, and chronic non-criminogenic needs. Their identifiable resources and strengths are extremely limited, if they exist at all, or are used to support criminal behavior (e.g., superficial charm to support fraud). The base rate of reoffending for Level V people (without intervention) is discernibly higher than that of Level IV. Their base rate of reoffending is comparable to that of individuals in the correctional population who reoffend most frequently (i.e., the highest 5 percent), with a corresponding minimum rate of reoffending of 85 percent within two years and an average reoffense rate of approximately 90 percent.
Correctional Response. Custody is appropriate for individuals in Level V for the sake of community safety. The degree of this group’s propensity to engage in criminal behavior warrants treatment services that are highly structured, comprehensive, intensive, and lengthy (e.g., exceeding 300 hours, provided over several years). Ideally, the provision of services would occur within secure facilities before release, with a gradual step-down of secure settings over time as the individual demonstrates incremental behavioral change. Individuals in Level V are expected to require the most intensive community supervision, including close monitoring and surveillance, as a priority for public protection. Change-focused supervision should be gradually introduced as the person demonstrates incremental behavioral and attitudinal changes over time.
Prognosis. Reductions in reoffending for individuals in Level V occur gradually over decades, if at all. Significant decreases in reoffending may be possible; however, evidence-based correctional strategies in sufficient dosage would be required. Nevertheless, their recidivism rates would be expected to remain high over the long term, eventually approaching the base rate of people grouped in Level IV after years of appropriate interventions. The chronic and persistent pattern of criminal behavior for people in Level V means that considerable time and intensive services would be required before they would be expected to approach the psychological profile and reoffending base rate of people grouped in Level III. In the advanced age group (50+), many individuals could reach the reoffending base rate of Level II.
Placement Scores are determined by a thorough review of an incarcerated person’s case factors, including age, crime committed, and whether violence was used, prior incarcerations, gang involvement, etc. Each year, a counselor performs an annual review to determine if an incarcerated person meets the criteria to have their placement score reduced. An incarcerated person has the opportunity to reduce their score if they have been programming and have not received any disciplinary actions. In contrast, an incarcerated person’s score and subsequent housing level can be increased due to receiving disciplinary actions.
Each determination affecting an incarcerated person’s placement within an institution/facility, transfer between facilities, program participation, work group, or custody designation is made by a classification committee. Equal access and effective communication is afforded in all committee hearings.
Unit Classification Committee (UCC) – UCC is held for initial and subsequent program assignments/changes/transfers and is composed of three members, chaired by staff at the level of Facility Captain or Correctional Captain. Committee actions include:
Explain facility expectations to the incarcerated person.
Explain job/program availability and review the incarcerated person’s eligibility.
Place the incarcerated person on a job or academic/vocational waiting list as appropriate.
Establish a work group.
Establish custody level.
Explain appeal process and credit earning process, if eligible.
Answer the incarcerated person’s questions.
Incarcerated persons appear before a UCC at least annually to adjust the classification score and reevaluate their housing status.
Institutional Classification Committee (ICC) – This is the institution’s highest level of committee. It consists of a minimum of three members and is chaired at the level of Warden or Chief Deputy Warden. Events that require ICC review include: behavior by incarcerated persons resulting in Restricted Housing Unit placement; issues referred by lower committees; case-by-case reviews to determine eligibility for minimum facilities; review of Security Housing Unit term assessments; and referral of cases for Departmental Review Board (DRB) consideration.
An incarcerated person is in privilege group U until they have completed the reception and classification process. During this process, there are no family visits; one-half of the maximum monthly canteen draw as authorized by the secretary; one telephone call within the first week and one per week thereafter; and no personal packages. The incarcerated person is informed of the specific privilege group and can give you this information.
The number of people expected to reoffend out of 100 in each of the five standardized risk and needs levels (Red boxes indicate the number of people expected to reoffend.)
Develop Treatment Plan and Assign Programs
Once assigned to a state facility, your counselor develops a treatment plan for you based on your needs. The plan can include a variety of programs. We track your progress in reaching your treatment plan goals each year and update them based on your needs.
Our staff will also annually re-evaluate your security level, good conduct, and facility assignment. Ideally, you will progress from higher to lower security level facilities as you complete your treatment plan.
Only inmates who participate in their treatment plan are able to earn credit for good conduct.
Throughout this lengthy process, which can take up to several weeks, Peter remained relatively safe. It was only after the process was completed and when he was released into the general population that he was in danger. While his reputation as someone you didn’t want to mess with, it was only a matter of time before associates of the now-defunct Black Dawn Cartel made a move on him. No amount of training would protect you against a surprise attack by an overwhelming force. This type of attack was right out of his playbook. Back in Rome, when he decided to turn himself in to the FBI, he knew this time would come. While he did not have a death wish and he wanted to spend the rest of his life with Jennie and Amelia and maybe a few more children, he knew that he had to pay for his sins eventually. He had shed way too much blood. When the body count was finally tabulated, he was probably responsible for killing more people than all of the rest of the Level 5 convicts put together. The sad part is that he had lost track of the number of people that he had killed. Peter also knew that if he told Jennie what would happen to him once he was in prison, she would never have agreed to it.
As the creator of this four-volume family saga, I can occasionally use poetic license to advance my story. In this case, I will jump ahead in time. I am doing this because my story has brought our characters right up to the present time, and if I am to draw this story to a suitable conclusion, I will need to jump ahead several months.
The actual events take place on October 3, 2025. Peter is taking advantage of his one hour of outdoor activity by simply walking the perimeter of the prison yard. He was lost in his thought, something he knew better than to do, when three prisoners, Bernd Gerber, Victor Axelsson, and Helmut Kuhn, all rushed him with hand-made shivs. Before he knew what happened, he had been stabbed multiple times by these men. When the guards, Bernard Moses and Donald Anthony, rushed up to assist Peter, the prisoners all snapped off the shivs in Peter’s body. The guards immediately called for medical assistance. Dr. William McClain, the staff doctor who was out enjoying a cigarette, was the first to respond. But by the time that he arrived, Peter had lost so much blood that there was nothing he could do; he was already dead. All he could do was mentally document the time that convict 29067 died by looking at his watch. The time of death was 1100, October 3, 2025. Tony Cooley, the warden, called for a total lockdown on the Level V section of the prison to prevent any rioting.
After the prison was secure, the three convicts were locked in solitary confinement, where they would eventually be tried for murder, but since they were already “lifers,” it didn’t matter. You can only serve one life term. Warden Cooley had the unenviable task of notifying the next of kin.